Thursday, July 30, 2009

"For those who think I am always against President Obama, let me give credit where credit is due. His necktie was perfect. I think he uses a Windsor knot. Like his necktie, his words are contorted into a twisted shape that fits him perfectly but does not benefit anybody else."

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Davis (then Pfc.) distinguished himself during the early morning hours while serving as a cannoneer with Battery C, at a remote fire support base. At approximately 0200 hours, the fire support base was under heavy enemy mortar attack. Simultaneously, an estimated reinforced Viet Cong battalion launched a fierce ground assault upon the fire support base. The attacking enemy drove to within 25 meters of the friendly positions. Only a river separated the Viet Cong from the fire support base. Detecting a nearby enemy position, Sgt. Davis seized a machinegun and provided covering fire for his guncrew, as they attempted to bring direct artillery fire on the enemy. Despite his efforts, an enemy recoilless rifle round scored a direct hit upon the artillery piece. The resultant blast hurled the guncrew from their weapon and blew Sgt. Davis into a foxhole. He struggled to his feet and returned to the howitzer, which was burning furiously. Ignoring repeated warnings to seek cover, Sgt. Davis rammed a shell into the gun. Disregarding a withering hail of enemy fire directed against his position, he aimed and fired the howitzer which rolled backward, knocking Sgt. Davis violently to the ground. Undaunted, he returned to the weapon to fire again when an enemy mortar round exploded within 20 meters of his position, injuring him painfully. Nevertheless, Sgt. Davis loaded the artillery piece, aimed and fired. Again he was knocked down by the recoil. In complete disregard for his safety, Sgt. Davis loaded and fired 3 more shells into the enemy. Disregarding his extensive injuries and his inability to swim, Sgt. Davis picked up an air mattress and struck out across the deep river to rescue 3 wounded comrades on the far side. Upon reaching the 3 wounded men, he stood upright and fired into the dense vegetation to prevent the Viet Cong from advancing. While the most seriously wounded soldier was helped across the river, Sgt. Davis protected the 2 remaining casualties until he could pull them across the river to the fire support base. Though suffering from painful wounds, he refused medical attention, joining another howitzer crew which fired at the large Viet Cong force until it broke contact and fled. Sgt. Davis' extraordinary heroism, at the risk of his life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself and the U.S. Army.

There are over a hundred living MoH recipients today. Their names and their stories should not be forgotten. My mission is to honor one of those heroes here each week, and salute them for their courage and sacrifice.

President Obama spent most of his press conference tonight denying what President Kennedy famously affirmed — that to govern is to choose. Obama promised us health care this is at once better and cheaper, with both more regulation and more freedom to choose, featuring an assurance that government won’t limit our care and a commitment to a government panel that will save money by restricting care.

The juvenile happy talk reached its peak with this presidential statement: “If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that’s going to make you well?” Now, there’s good idea. Why hasn’t anyone else thought of that? For this reform, we need to spend $1 trillion?

Monday, July 27, 2009

This week, Philip Morris, the biggest of the Big Tobacco companies, supported and won passage of an "anti-tobacco" bill that will make it easier for Philip Morris (a subsidiary of Altria) to sell cigarettes by making it harder for smaller, more innovative firms to compete. One way it will do that is by curtailing the First Amendment rights of tobacco companies, making it harder to advertise their products (including healthier alternatives to normal cigarettes). Philip Morris, maker of Marlboro and other established brands, already controls 50 percent of the market. That's why it lobbied government to keep it that way.

Although Gibbs doesn't come out and say it, it appears that Obama's "acted stupidly" line was not a spur of the moment blunder, but rather scripted commentary that he worked out in advance with his aides.

I had wondered a bit myself, it this remark had not been calculated as a stalking horse to distract the country from the odiousness of his public health proposals. I kept telling myself it was too Machiavellian, and I should just Keep it Simple!

Hinderaker cites the exchange on Fox News Sunday:

BAIER: Presidents, before prime time news conferences, usually have detailed preparation sessions. And President Obama has already had four time prime time news conferences.

Before Wednesday's news conference, did you prepare him for a question about Henry Gates's arrest in Cambridge?

GIBBS: Well, look, let's just say, it's safe to say we went over a whole lot of topics that we thought might come up, and certainly, this was a topic that was and has been in the news.

I think the president, on Friday, spoke about the fact that he hadn't calibrated his words well probably unnecessarily added to the media frenzy around what was going on in Cambridge, so much so that even the police officer, Sergeant Crowley, that he talked to, from Cambridge, asked him for advice on how to get the press off of his -- off of his lawn, and the president said, "I'm trying to figure out how to get the press off my lawn, too."

BAIER: You know, you -- so you prepared him for the question, or at least made him aware that it could come up. Did he read the police report beforehand?

GIBBS: I don't know if the president read the police report. I think the president was clear in discussing the fact that he did not know all the details of what had transpired in Cambridge.

My guess is that only a very few people know exactly what happened in every instance in that. Again, I know the president...

(CROSSTALK)

BAIER: I guess my question is, early on, did he determine that he was going to take sides to back his friend to the extent that he did Wednesday?

GIBBS: Well, again, I think the president discussed the notion that saying beforehand that he knew Professor Gates, that he didn't have all the details, and in hindsight understands that his words were not calibrated as they should have been.

Gibbs even repeats the same lame "calibrated" remark that Obama tried to use to excuse himself!

So, now there are more possibilities!

A) It was a stupid and careless remark based on insufficient facts.B) It was calculated to distract the public from an odious health plan by making inflammatory statements against the policeC) It was calculated to be a "teachable moment" to bring us poor rubes in America where we needed to be in the matters of race relationships.D) A and B but not CE) B and C but not AF) All of the above

Whatever it was, it appears to have backfired on Obama, unless it was "B", in which case it may have succeeded beyond his wildest dreams!

Which is wishful thinking, given the fact that Obama is shooting himself in the foot while he has his foot in his mouth.

At the risk of being called a liar (again), I would content that Obama's attempts to usurp the nation's health care and his clumsy, ham handed handling of l'affaire Gates and his tepid "should have 'calibrated' my words better" non-apology continue to drive his negatives up and his strongest support down.

Rasmussen reports that Obama's approval rating continues to plunge, fueled in part by his attempts to usurp the nation's health care and put it under government control and his ham handed handling of the question about Louis Henry Gates' run in with the law.

One clown even wrote that Obama was right to "humiliate" the police officer. Obama made no new friends in America with his presser, and alienated at least a few who may have been siting on the fence!

Tonight’s presser was simply more of the same from the self-styled “agent of change” and “post-partisan politician”: Pure politics, unwavering liberal ideology, appallingly transparent scare tactics, demonization of a nameless opposition, and an argument so thick with straw men that the President had better wait until he’s several hundred meters away to light his next cigarette, lest the entire building go up in flames.

Gee! I wonder what the President could do to changethose numbers? He could champion a health care plan that the majority of Americans don't want? Maybe he could unnecessarily interject himself into a small town dust up over phony charges of racism? As the "post-racial" President, he could come down on the side of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt? Nah!

There is much to be said about the astonishing dishonesty of President Obama’s health-care rhetoric tonight, and much (no doubt) will be said. But I have to admit I was actually most struck by his answer to the last question, about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates. It’s the kind of question to which a president would normally reply with something like: “that's a local police matter, I don't know the details and I know it will be worked out responsibly,” and move along. Obama gave a lengthy review of the facts, called the police officers involved stupid, and implied they are also liars. Very odd behavior for a president.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

I'm sure you've heard by now, that the President of the United States interjected himself into a local police matter by addressing it at his press conference.

Among the responses available to him were:

"No comment"

"I have no comment"

"This is a matter for the local police and local courts, so I will not comment."

"I do not possess all of the facts, so it would not be prudent for me to comment at this time."

However, what he actually did say, after acknowledging that he did not have all the facts, was to assert that the police "acted stupidly" in the matter.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but the only one who "acted stupidly" was the Leader of the Free World, a person whose every word will be parsed closely and examined for layers of meaning, who shot from the hip, not in possession of all the facts, but asserting himself in a way that could conceivably incite racial tensions or animosity towards honest police officers.

The development of our rocket program and the drive to get to the moon was one of the brightest and greatest achievements of the American spirit and of American know-how, a true showing of what we can achieve through science, engineering, a can-do attitude that comes from our unique culture, and the bravery and determination that was the common, shared trait of all of our test pilots and astronauts. The fact that we have not only not been back to the moon since the end of the Apollo program, but have not expanded our horizons in trying to reach the other planets in our solar system, is a sad indication of what may be the beginning of our decline as a great nation.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Seeing the photos of the first lunar landing and the first man to walk on the moon brought back a rush of memories this last weekend. Planting Old Glory on the lunar surface was an effort of blood and of sweat and of tears, which came at a cost not only of our national treasure, but the lives of men dedicated to serving their country.

So, I think it is interesting to note, in the face of those who bleat about American "imperialism" where there is no empire, should consider the tremendous opportunity that the United States passed up forty years ago this week:

In the past, the way that a country laid claim to any unclaimed or virgin lands was to send an expedition there and plant one's flag upon its soil. That land might be forfeited to force or purchased away with more treasure, but the United States could have pressed a valid legal claim for making the moon the 51st state.

I remember, as a boy, I had trading cards that showed the exploration of space, and one of them showed astronauts raising the UN flag on the moon - the meaning being that no one country should lay claim to the Earth's primary natural satellite.

But, it wasn't a UN flag that Armstrong and company raised on the moon, it was the Stars and Stripes. We, as a nation, had in our legal grasp the largest unclaimed territory in over a quarter of a million miles and yet, we declined from making any such territorial claims. Just as we recaptured Kuwait from Iraq and gave it back to the Kuwaitis, and captured Iraq from Saddam Hussein and gave it back to the Iraqis, the US does not have imperialistic aims.

The twits who like to listen to the sound of themselves calling for the US to stop its "imperialism" are going to have to wait for it to start first!

Remembering that flag and the race to put it there, made me think of just how foolish the charge of American imperialism is and has been for decades.

For extraordinary heroism as a Flight Commander in the Republic of Vietnam, while serving with Company A, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). On 14 November 1965, his flight of sixteen helicopters was lifting troops for a search and destroy mission from Plei Me, Vietnam, to Landing Zone X-Ray in the la Drang Valley. On the fourth troop lift, the airlift began to take enemy fire, and by the time the aircraft had refueled and returned for the next troop lift, the enemy had Landing Zone X-Ray targeted. As Major Crandall and the first eight helicopters landed to discharge troops on his fifth troop lift, his unarmed helicopter came under such intense enemy fire that the ground commander ordered the second flight of eight aircraft to abort their mission. As Major Crandall flew back to Plei Me, his base of operations, he determined that the ground commander of the besieged infantry battalion desperately needed more ammunition. Major Crandall then decided to adjust his base of operations to Artillery Firebase Falcon in order to shorten the flight distance to deliver ammunition and evacuate wounded soldiers. While medical evacuation was not his mission, he immediately sought volunteers and with complete disregard for his own personal safety, led the two aircraft to Landing Zone X-Ray. Despite the fact that the landing zone was still under relentless enemy fire, Major Crandall landed and proceeded to supervise the loading of seriously wounded soldiers aboard his aircraft. Major Crandall's voluntary decision to land under the most extreme fire instilled in the other pilots the will and spirit to continue to land their own aircraft, and in the ground forces the realization that they would be resupplied and that friendly wounded would be promptly evacuated. This greatly enhanced morale and the will to fight at a critical time. After his first medical evacuation, Major Crandall continued to fly into and out of the landing zone throughout the day and into the evening. That day he completed a total of 22 flights, most under intense enemy fire, retiring from the battlefield only after all possible service had been rendered to the Infantry battalion. His actions provided critical resupply of ammunition and evacuation of the wounded. Major Crandall's daring acts of bravery and courage in the face of an overwhelming and determined enemy are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

There are over a hundred living MoH recipients today. Their names and their stories should not be forgotten. My mission is to honor one of those heroes here each week, and salute them for their courage and sacrifice.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

In February 2009, outrage in the Obamas’ community exploded after a young boy covered by Medicaid was turned away from the University of Chicago Medical Center. Dontae Adams’ mother, Angela, had sought emergency treatment for him after a pit bull tore off his upper lip. Mrs. Obama’s hospital gave the boy a tetanus shot, antibiotics, and Tylenol and shoved him out the door. The mother and son took an hour-long bus ride to another hospital for surgery.

I’ll guarantee you this: You’ll never see the Adams family featured at an Obama policy summit or seated next to the First Lady at a joint session of Congress to illustrate the failures of the health care system.

Monday, July 20, 2009

In the history of flight, it was only sixty-six years from Kitty Hawk to "The Eagle has landed". Man went from a short powered flight to landing on the moon.Forty years ago, the future looked limitless.

Had the last forty years proceeded apace with the first sixty-six years of flight, where do you think would we be today?

Notice the lack of a "set". Cronkite just seems to have a camera parked in front of his desk! Very different from the "Up to the Minute" set that bookends the piece! And the interview with John Kennedy is far from the thirty second soundbites of today! Also note Dan Rather's report on the "Negroes" in Louisiana. And the Geritol commercial trails off right about "twice the iron in a pound of calf's liver"!

And yes, for you younger viewers, the world was not in color back in those days!

I really haven't dissected Ms. Sotomayor's remark here, but you've heard it enough times every where else that it is practically un muerto caballo!

But, here's a couple things I really haven't heard any place else, so here's my take on it.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

First: Would a truly "wise" Latina have said that? Remember, that it was not a casual remark, but a scripted part of her speech that she repeated over a number of years. It may have had the intended effect on her immediate audiences, but the "wisdom" of saying that a wise person from one ethnic group would "reach a better conclusion" than someone of the opposite sex or different ethnicity escapes me!

Second, even if it were true of a superior or municipal court judge, appellate court justices are not supposed to be focused on the outcome of the verdicts, but whether or not the law and the Constitution were followed by the lower courts in reaching that outcome.

Here, forgive me, I'd rather have an analytical justice, conversant in the law and the Constitution to examine the process, not empathize with the outcome!

So, unless the "richness of her experience" is pouring over Constitution law and mountains of legal texts, I would say that a justice with a good analytical mind trumps the mushy, squishy richness of her diverse upbringing!

As a bonus, here's video of Sotomayor answering an off the wall question, before funnyman wannabee Al Franken finishes asking it:

She must have had a copy of the question before hand. Had I been a candidate for SCOTUS and someone asked me a stupid question about a fictional TV lawyer, I'm sure I would have sat in stunned silence for at least a few moments, as the audacity of some fool asking such a worthless question sunk in. Here, she doesn't even wait for him to stop talking before she jumps in to answer! Clearly a scripted moment, with Sotomayor in on the script!

Hamilton's neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) was full when Ava Isabella Stinson was born 14 weeks premature at St. Joseph's Hospital Thursday at 12:24 p.m.

A provincewide search for an open NICU bed came up empty, leaving no choice but to send the two-pound, four-ounce preemie to Buffalo that evening.

Well, it would be unreasonable to expect Hamilton, a city of half-a-million people just down the road from Canada's largest city (Greater Toronto Area, five-and-a-half million) in the most densely populated part of Canada's most populous province (Ontario, 13 million people) to be able to offer the same level of neonatal care as Buffalo, a post-industrial ruin in steep population decline for half-a-century.

Nearly six months ago, my administration took office amid the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. -Barack Obama

The President and his team use this language to lower the bar against which they are measured. The U.S. economy was quite unhealthy on January 20th, and it still is. Still... while the President’s statement is almost technically true, there is a big difference between “most severe … since the Great Depression” and “comparable to the Great Depression.”

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Peter Singer is a "bioethicist". This and fifty cents will get you a cup of really bad coffee! Singer has an op-ed in New York Times making the case for the rationing of healthcare. This puts him as a flak for Obamacare.

Governments implicitly place a dollar value on a human life when they decide how much is to be spent on health care programs and how much on other public goods that are not directed toward saving lives. The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated. It is the familiar comparative exercise of getting the most bang for your buck. Sometimes that can be relatively easy to decide. If two drugs offer the same benefits and have similar risks of side effects, but one is much more expensive than the other, only the cheaper one should be provided by the public health care program.

Or, here's another scenario...same as above, but now, we'll give a kickback to one of the officials in charge of that life saving drug, and see which one is chosen? Like that would never happen! (John Murtha)Or maybe if stocks of the drug are limited, we can have the official allocate the drugs to those with the most political clout or connections?

In all the history of the world, we've never had problems with elected or unelected officials making bad decisions, unethical decisions or acting out of incompetence....And I have a bridge I'd like to sell you!

The death of a teenager is a greater tragedy than the death of an 85-year-old, and this should be reflected in our priorities.

I don't know about you, but I've known some pretty snotty and worthless teenagers! And some 85 year olds saved our bacon on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima. I do not concede the point that all other things being equal, the death of a teenager is a greater tragedy than the death of an 85-year-old, because all other things are never equal.

Singer goes on to state a formula, which presumably government bureaucrats would use to determine that some anti-social teenage skinhead deserves X amount of healthcare, while an aging WWII vet would receive Y. He doesn't couch it in quite those terms, but if you read Pinheadese, you can figure it out!

How else can Singer quantify your life? Try wading through this:

Health care does more than save lives: it also reduces pain and suffering. How can we compare saving a person’s life with, say, making it possible for someone who was confined to bed to return to an active life? We can elicit people’s values on that too. One common method is to describe medical conditions to people — let’s say being a quadriplegic — and tell them that they can choose between 10 years in that condition or some smaller number of years without it. If most would prefer, say, 10 years as a quadriplegic to 4 years of nondisabled life, but would choose 6 years of nondisabled life over 10 with quadriplegia, but have difficulty deciding between 5 years of nondisabled life or 10 years with quadriplegia, then they are, in effect, assessing life with quadriplegia as half as good as nondisabled life. (These are hypothetical figures, chosen to keep the math simple, and not based on any actual surveys.) If that judgment represents a rough average across the population, we might conclude that restoring to nondisabled life two people who would otherwise be quadriplegics is equivalent in value to saving the life of one person, provided the life expectancies of all involved are similar.

Got it? You're not an individual to him, you're Spam in a can! He can trade two cans of Spam for a pudding pop and a box of Ho-Ho's to be determined later!

Some will object that this discriminates against people with disabilities. (Damn skippy!) If we return to the hypothetical assumption that a year with quadriplegia is valued at only half as much as a year without it, then a treatment that extends the lives of people without disabilities will be seen as providing twice the value of one that extends, for a similar period, the lives of quadriplegics. That clashes with the idea that all human lives are of equal value. The problem, however, does not lie with the concept of the quality-adjusted life-year, but with the judgment that, if faced with 10 years as a quadriplegic, one would prefer a shorter lifespan without a disability.

What one might prefer in an ideal world and how one might face reality are two different matters. While I might say, theoretically, that I would prefer living for only four years without my legs as opposed to ten years with them, that hypothetical is pretty meaningless when it comes down to making a decision based on the reality of the here and now, and not some pointy headed intellectual exercise as to what measures should be taken to maintain health and life. I want to be considered as an individual, not just another cog in the machine. Peter Singer is very much a cog in the machine kind of guy.

"because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." Practical Ethics, Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 185.

So, Mr. Singer, you cannot tell the difference between the value of my life and an animal's, and yet you want me to trust you and the government you advise to appropriately value the comparison of my life and health to a finite pool of healthcare dollars and make the correct decision? Yeah. Right!

This method of preserving our belief that everyone has an equal right to life is, however, a double-edged sword. If life with quadriplegia is as good as life without it, there is no health benefit to be gained by curing it.

Here in all his pointyheaded liberalness is the fallacy: The "quality" of life is not encompassed by one's physical wholeness. Who are you, Mr. Singer, as a pointyheaded liberal wonk to tell me that the quality of my life is dictated by the number of functioning fingers or toes I have, as long as my mind is active? What right has the government to decide whether I live or die (or lose more toes) on the basis of your flawed reasoning?

If this guy represents the way you think, then Obamacare may be for you! If you lean more towards the Descartesian "I think, therefore I am", then you should fight Obamacare with all your strength while you still have it!

S/Sgt. Cavaiani distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action in the Republic of Vietnam on 4 and 5 June 1971 while serving as a platoon leader to a security platoon providing security for an isolated radio relay site located within enemy-held territory. On the morning of 4 June 1971, the entire camp came under an intense barrage of enemy small arms, automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenade and mortar fire from a superior size enemy force. S/Sgt. Cavaiani acted with complete disregard for his personal safety as he repeatedly exposed himself to heavy enemy fire in order to move about the camp's perimeter directing the platoon's fire and rallying the platoon in a desperate fight for survival. S/Sgt. Cavaiani also returned heavy suppressive fire upon the assaulting enemy force during this period with a variety of weapons. When the entire platoon was to be evacuated, S/Sgt. Cavaiani unhesitatingly volunteered to remain on the ground and direct the helicopters into the landing zone. S/Sgt. Cavaiani was able to direct the first 3 helicopters in evacuating a major portion of the platoon. Due to intense increase in enemy fire, S/Sgt. Cavaiani was forced to remain at the camp overnight where he calmly directed the remaining platoon members in strengthening their defenses. On the morning of S June, a heavy ground fog restricted visibility. The superior size enemy force launched a major ground attack in an attempt to completely annihilate the remaining small force. The enemy force advanced in 2 ranks, first firing a heavy volume of small arms automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenade fire while the second rank continuously threw a steady barrage of hand grenades at the beleaguered force. S/Sgt. Cavaiani returned a heavy barrage of small arms and hand grenade fire on the assaulting enemy force but was unable to slow them down. He ordered the remaining platoon members to attempt to escape while he provided them with cover fire. With 1 last courageous exertion, S/Sgt. Cavaiani recovered a machinegun, stood up, completely exposing himself to the heavy enemy fire directed at him, and began firing the machinegun in a sweeping motion along the 2 ranks of advancing enemy soldiers. Through S/Sgt. Cavaiani's valiant efforts with complete disregard for his safety, the majority of the remaining platoon members were able to escape. While inflicting severe losses on the advancing enemy force, S/Sgt. Cavaiani was wounded numerous times. S/Sgt. Cavaiani's conspicuous gallantry, extraordinary heroism and intrepidity at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty, were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself and the U.S. Army.

Staff Sergeant Cavaiani: We humbly salute you and thank you for your service.

There are over a hundred living MoH recipients today. Their names and their stories should not be forgotten. My mission is to honor one of those heroes here each week, and salute them for their courage and sacrifice.

I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? …

Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.

OK, if you were really proud to be an American, Mr. Vice President, you wouldn’t find it necessary to preface that declaration with the words, “as corny as it sounds”. If you were really proud to be an American those words wouldn’t sound corny to you. Then again, if you were really proud to be an American you wouldn’t be serving under a President who spent his last trip overseas apologizing to the world on behalf of America. You wouldn’t be serving under a President who either doesn’t recognize or simply doesn’t understand the concept of American exceptionalism. You wouldn’t, it could be reasonably argued, be a member of the current Democrat Party.

Monday, July 13, 2009

In his 1996 memoir, "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," Obama wrote candidly about his high school-era drug use: "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though."

Lately, Mr. Obama has been making statements that call into question whether or not his drug usage is all in the past*.

First there was the obviously false story he told about where and how he met Michelle. He told a bunch of Russian students that they might meet their future spouse in class the way he did, only he didn't. No big. Hardly a blip on the Whopper meter.

I know it particularly galls the liberals to have to admit that Ronald Reagan played any part at all, much less a major part in winning the Cold War, but the people of Russia and Eastern Europe were under the thumb of totalitarian regimes. The backs of those regimes needed to be broken before the people would ever have a prayer of taking their countries back, much less peacefully standing up against their oppressors.

Why Obama would not credit the efforts of the West in general and the US in particular in concluding the Cold War (BTW, Barack: Those of us on the winning side, generally speak of "winning" the Cold War!), is a mystery. Particularly for an administration that aims to end smoking, The question du jour seems to be what's he been smoking?

"I," said the president, who is inordinately fond of the first-person singular pronoun, "want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy meddling in the private sector." He said that in March, when the government already owned 80 percent of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

As regular readers know, this feature generally appears every Wednesday to celebrate living recipients of The Medal.

Ed Freeman passed away last week August at the age of 80. There were "big brass ones" on this man, too!

Citation:

Captain Ed W. Freeman, United States Army, distinguished himself by numerous acts of conspicuous gallantry and extraordinary intrepidity on 14 November 1965 while serving with Company A, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). As a flight leader and second in command of a 16-helicopter lift unit, he supported a heavily engaged American infantry battalion at Landing Zone X-Ray in the Ia Drang Valley, Republic of Vietnam. The unit was almost out of ammunition after taking some of the heaviest casualties of the war, fighting off a relentless attack from a highly motivated, heavily armed enemy force. When the infantry commander closed the helicopter landing zone due to intense direct enemy fire, Captain Freeman risked his own life by flying his unarmed helicopter through a gauntlet of enemy fire time after time, delivering critically needed ammunition, water and medical supplies to the besieged battalion. His flights had a direct impact on the battle's outcome by providing the engaged units with timely supplies of ammunition critical to their survival, without which they would almost surely have gone down, with much greater loss of life. After medical evacuation helicopters refused to fly into the area due to intense enemy fire, Captain Freeman flew 14 separate rescue missions, providing life-saving evacuation of an estimated 30 seriously wounded soldiers -- some of whom would not have survived had he not acted. All flights were made into a small emergency landing zone within 100 to 200 meters of the defensive perimeter where heavily committed units were perilously holding off the attacking elements. Captain Freeman's selfless acts of great valor, extraordinary perseverance and intrepidity were far above and beyond the call of duty or mission and set a superb example of leadership and courage for all of his peers. Captain Freeman's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army.

Capt. Freeman: We humbly salute you and thank you for your service. Rest in peace, sir.

http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/living/living_war_wwii.html

There are over a hundred living MoH recipients. Today, there is one less. Their names and their stories should not be forgotten. My mission is to honor one of those heroes here each week, and salute them for their courage and sacrifice.

Update: Mr. Ross may have been mistaken. According to this website, Captain Freeman passed away in August 2008. He has since updated his site as well. It's a shame that MoH recipients don't receive a better send off than rock stars do!

"...[Their] plan unleashed a lobbying free-for-all that led politicians to doleout favors to various industries, undermining the environmental goals. Fouryears later, it is becoming clear that system has so far produced littlenoticable benefit to the climate--but generated a multibillion dollar windfallfor some of the Continent's biggest polluters."

-NYT on Europe's "Cap and Trade",quoted in Glenn Beck's An Inconvenient Book

Saturday, July 11, 2009

His attorneys tried to suppress a search warrant of his home and tried to get his indictment dismissed on a technicality. But in the end, former state director Robert E. McFadden admitted yesterday to pimping a 17-year-old prostitute on the Internet.

McFadden, the former director of Gov. Ted Strickland's Faith-Based and Community Initiative, pleaded guilty to two felony counts after police said he put nude photographs of the girl on a Web site to promote prostitution.

McFadden, 46, of xxxx Xxxxxx xx in Dublin, pleaded guilty to two counts of compelling prostitution using his computer between September and October last year. Five other counts of pandering obscenity and promoting prostitution were dismissed.

Mr. McFadden, in addition to being Gov. Ted Strickland's (D-OH) Faith-Based and Community Initiative director, was founder of "Catholics for Kerry" (D-MA) in 2004 and "head of the Catholic outreach of the Clinton campaign (D-NY) last year."

Gee! I hope I didn't "scoop" anyone who was planning on writing a convoluted, yet meaningless headline about this guy! After all, we all know that sleazeball tactics, crime and corruption are solely caused by one party in this country! /sarcasm

Thank you, AG Holder, for clearing up the real purpose behind “hate crime” laws — they are designed only to protect “historic” minorities, i.e. non-whites, homosexuals, and non-Christians. If you are white, or associated with a belief system akin to Christianity, and you are singled out as the target of a criminal act solely because of the color of your skin or your religious beliefs, you have no additional recourse against the perpetrators of the crime under the proposed law.

Friday, July 10, 2009

It says "Clean Energy for America", but is it just my imagination, or do those wispy "clouds" in the sky at the top vaguely resemble Africa, India and Asia, maybe Australia stylized in there, left to right?"We are the world", right?

That's a new sticker offered by Move-On dot org absotively free! Of course, they would like it if you contributed something, but if you'd like them to waste their money and send you something you won't use, you can contact them here.

If you feel it encourages the poor buggers to get that much attention, then you can just sit this one out!

Still not quite sure how carbon taxes on coal are going to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but I'm sure some nice man from the government would be happy to explain it to us!

The spending on overseas travel is up almost tenfold since 1995, and has nearly tripled since 2001, according to the Journal analysis of 60,000 travel records. Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That's a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

It must be true! I mean, I got a very official looking email from E.B. Positive's attorney, looking for next of kin to settle E.B.'s $8.5 million estate!(The fact that "Proof Positive" is the name of my blog and not my real name, should not be construed to mean that I am not deserving of the money!)

So, if blogging is a little light for the next couple days, I'll be in court, legally changing my name, my driver's license, SS card, etc. in anticipation of the big windfall. Ah, E.B.! I hardly knew ye!

Of course, if all of my readers who think this is simply an old Internet scam were to send me five dollars each, I could attend the funeral of dear old B.E., er, E.B., whatever!

In my half century or so upon the planet, I've never run into anyone with the surname of "Positive". However, if I have offended any Positive people out there, you can keep your five dollars! (I won't really be attending the services!)

For the fourth time in six cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has reversed a decision for which Judge Sonia Sotomayor voted on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. If this nominee were a white male, would this not raise questions about whether he should be elevated to a court that has found his previous decisions wrong two-thirds of the times when those decisions have been reviewed?

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Capt. Bucha distinguished himself while serving as commanding officer, Company D, on a reconnaissance-in-force mission against enemy forces near Phuoc Vinh, The company was inserted by helicopter into the suspected enemy stronghold to locate and destroy the enemy. During this period Capt. Bucha aggressively and courageously led his men in the destruction of enemy fortifications and base areas and eliminated scattered resistance impeding the advance of the company. On 18 March while advancing to contact, the lead elements of the company became engaged by the heavy automatic weapon, heavy machinegun, rocket propelled grenade, Claymore mine and small-arms fire of an estimated battalion-size force. Capt. Bucha, with complete disregard for his safety, moved to the threatened area to direct the defense and ordered reinforcements to the aid of the lead element. Seeing that his men were pinned down by heavy machinegun fire from a concealed bunker located some 40 meters to the front of the positions, Capt. Bucha crawled through the hail of fire to single-handedly destroy the bunker with grenades. During this heroic action Capt. Bucha received a painful shrapnel wound. Returning to the perimeter, he observed that his unit could not hold its positions and repel the human wave assaults launched by the determined enemy. Capt. Bucha ordered the withdrawal of the unit elements and covered the withdrawal to positions of a company perimeter from which he could direct fire upon the charging enemy. When 1 friendly element retrieving casualties was ambushed and cut off from the perimeter, Capt. Bucha ordered them to feign death and he directed artillery fire around them. During the night Capt. Bucha moved throughout the position, distributing ammunition, providing encouragement and insuring the integrity of the defense. He directed artillery, helicopter gunship and Air Force gunship fire on the enemy strong points and attacking forces, marking the positions with smoke grenades. Using flashlights in complete view of enemy snipers, he directed the medical evacuation of 3 air-ambulance loads of seriously wounded personnel and the helicopter supply of his company. At daybreak Capt. Bucha led a rescue party to recover the dead and wounded members of the ambushed element. During the period of intensive combat, Capt. Bucha, by his extraordinary heroism, inspirational example, outstanding leadership and professional competence, led his company in the decimation of a superior enemy force which left 156 dead on the battlefield. His bravery and gallantry at the risk of his life are in the highest traditions of the military service, Capt. Bucha has reflected great credit on himself, his unit, and the U.S. Army.

There are over a hundred living MoH recipients today. Their names and their stories should not be forgotten. My mission is to honor one of those heroes here each week, and salute them for their courage and sacrifice.

Recently, on another blog, I mentioned the Axis of Weasels: Obama/Pelosi/Reid whom I said the public was going to hold accountable in 2010, perhaps by resurrecting the old "Misery Index".

One of the lines I hear the Left spouting these days is

"How can you hold Obama responsible for not creating more jobs? I thought you conservatives believed that jobs were created by the private sector?"

Which is true enough, as far as it goes, but neglects to mention the jobs Obama promised would be created by his Porkulus spending bill, er, Stimulus package.

The following graph will illustrate it. Note the Red Sea that Obama failed to part between where he said unemployment would be with the "stimulus" package as opposed to doing nothing at all! These are missing jobs that Obama promised "If you spend it, they will come".

While those on the Left try in vain to change the subject, adding funny man Al Franken to the line up does nothing but put responsibility for any further failure of the economy to recover squarely in the Democrat's court.

(And don't even get me started on the courts!)

Then again, maybe he was trying to tell us about a river of red ink during his campaign?

"Would a private employer not be guilty of unlawful discrimination if he refrained from establishing a racial hiring quota but intentionally designed his hiring practices to achieve the same end? Surely he would. Intentional discrimination is still occurring, just one step up the chain." -Antonin Scalia, on Ricci v. DeStefano

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

I heard a comment on the radio today from one of Michael Jackson's fans, who breathlessly uttered that "Michael's legacy would live forever."And I really wanted to say just two words to her: Rudy Vallée.

Rudy Vallée was the Michael Jackson of his day. In the 1930's, he was probably the most famous singer in America. He was a recording star, sold out concerts, made movies...the bee's knees, actually! (Heh.)

But, even for those of you who recognized the name or remembered him from your youth, how many of you have even given him a passing thought in the last twenty years?

Such is the fleeting nature of fame! MJ's young fan, who cannot conceive of a world without Michael's music will slowly drift into a world of "Michael who? "

Napoleon once said that "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever". In the long run, obscurity only beats out glory by a nose!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The U.S. Constitution is less than a quarter the length of the owner's manual for a 1998 Toyota Camry, and yet it has managed to keep 300 million of the world's most unruly, passionate and energetic people safe, prosperous and free.

Friday, July 3, 2009

There's a joke about a woman who says she can't be overdrawn on her bank account because she still has checks! In California, we elect our jokes to the legislature! (with apologies to the state of Minnesota!)Case in point is Santa Rosa Democrat Noreen Evans. Noreen is a state assemblywoman (asssemblyperson?) who made the news recently with the following statement:

Well, there is this mantra out there - "live within our means" - and while that sounds really nice . . . and it sounds really responsible, it's meaningless. Our means are completely within our control . . . We have just given away huge corporate subsidies in February; we have given away other tax reductions over many, many years; we've created tax loopholes; in good times, we routinely give away taxes, and then in lean times we never replace those tax deductions or close those loopholes. . . . So "live within our means" doesn't mean anything. The fact is, we have a state with a population that have [sic] needs that we have a moral obligation to provide.

Did you get that? "Live within our means" doesn't mean anything, it's "meaningless"!Keep in mind that the state of California is broke and handing out IOUs in lieu of cash these days! Not only does living within your means not mean anything, but according to this shining example of modern liberalism, we have a moral obligation to spend more than we take in!

What about a moral obligation to good stewardship of public funds? Could it be that in taking care of the needs of the population, one needs to be careful about other discretionary use of tax dollars in order to insure that there will be enough to take care of those needs?

How about the needs of people to have jobs and to keep enough of their own money that they do not become wards of the state? If you keep raising taxes on business, forcing employers out of the state, then there are fewer taxpayers to pay taxes. And more unemployed people.

The idea that every state expenditure is necessary, or that every good idea has to be implemented by the state is not conducive to fiscal responsibility. The idea that the taxpayer is "morally obligated" to fund every want that the state legislature perceives as "need" is unrealistic.

That's why there's a budget, Ms. Evans. That's why the state constitution requires that the budget be balanced every year. You probably took an oath to uphold that constitution when you assumed office. If you didn't then you should have!

Responsible adults don't regularly spend more than they make. On those occasions when they do, they'd better have a pretty darn good reason for it. Not just a warm fuzzy feeling about spending other people's money!

Search This Blog

About

John Cox is a painter, cartoonist, and illustrator for hire. For information about purchasing existing work or commissioning new work, contact him by e-mail at john555cox @ hotmail.com. (No spaces)

Proof Positive: Home of Snarknado™. Come for the satire, stay for the snark.Contact Mike (aka Proof) at Proof .Positive @ Hotmail .com

The Blog Commandments

I. Commenting here is a privilege, not a right.

II. Disagreement is welcome, even encouraged, but spam, unduly profane, or offensive speech is subject to removal by the staff and management of this blog. (Insults from anonymous trolls hardest hit.)

III. Any graphics I cobble together that have the Proof Positive address on them are fair game, so feel free to use whatever you like. A simple link in return is all we ask. (Credit or blame where due.)

IV. The artwork that John does is his own, so you should write him for permission to use it.V. As a matter of policy, I never knowingly print lies or untruths in my blog or Tweets, unless I'm quoting correctly the liberal who told them.VI. Follow me on Twitter: @Proofblog

Flag Counter (Since May '09)

Proof Positive Glossary:

Support Democracies Around the World

Support Our Allies Around the World

Support Our Friends Around the World

Casablanca

Day by Day

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, & social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use any copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must first obtain permission from the copyright owner.